Don’t hurt yourself jumping to conclusions!

Honestly, you really ought to stretch and warm up a bit before jumping to conclusions. You guys jumped so far and so hard, I’m worried you might hurt yourselves!

I am referring of course, to my now notorious anal sex post. You will recall I made a simple statement:

“In my opinion, anal sex is icky.”

People instantly jumped to the conclusion that this opinion has something to do with the definition of marriage. Of course, it does not. I never said it did. I never even hinted that I thought that it did.

Nevertheless, the Life Style Left is so deeply imbued with statism (i.e. the ideology and cult of the state) that they reflexively interpret and reinterpret every issue in terms of what the government is or isn’t doing. For a movement that claims to be about freedom and liberation, this is not a good sign.

The second place people jumped was to a lame effort to score points. I was instantly informed that straight people engage in anal sex too! A long conversation ensued about who does it, who likes it, etc. The observation that anyone might perform this particular sexual act actually demonstrates this simple point: In our society, anyone, male or female, straight or gay, might have a personal preference or opinion on the subject.

All in all, a rhetorical triumph for the Life Style Left! You proved a point that no one ever denied and that is irrelevant to any issue at hand. (sarc!)

(BTW: To all of you charitable souls who expressed concern about the frequency and pleasure of my personal sex life, let me say, my husband and I are truly touched. I also received charming suggestions for sexual activities I might perform on myself. For some reason, Betsy censored these comments.)

Our posts on the costs of divorce, the benefits of monogamy, the various nefarious acts by the IVF industry, the problems of population decline, and the Indian government’s sterilization of its citizens generated an average of zero comments. The Post in Question however, received over one hundred comments. Perhaps that is what your search filters are set up to find. Or, perhaps this is the sort of post the Market demands, and therefore, what I ought to produce more of.

You may wonder: since I believe this set of comments was basically irrelevant, what exactly was I trying to get at with The Post in Question, apart from the intrinsic amusement of taunting Leftists? I will explain in another post.

No, Jennifer. We got what you were saying. You did your own logical acrobatics by suggesting (even if somewhat facetiously) that if same-sex marriage is legal, saying that “anal sex is icky” would become illegal. As ludicrous a suggestion as that is, you knew that some readers would buy it. What you (and they) needed to be reminded of is that heterosexuals also engage in anal sex yet we don’t hear you suggesting that man-woman marriage should be illegal so that you can continue to enjoy the freedom to state which types of heterosexual activity make you feel yucky when you think about them. You may have been going for silliness but the fact that you were attempting to perpetuate the lie that same-sex marriage will make saying or simply believing certain things illegal is not the least bit amusing.

I wonder how the peanut gallery would react to the fact that no less an irreligious fanatic as Christopher Hitchens named a certain icky sex act as one of the four most overrated things in the world (along with picnics, champagne and lobster). See: http://overratedlist.com/

“Nevertheless, the Life Style Left is so deeply imbued with statism (i.e. the ideology and cult of the state”

I’m not really sure what the “Lifestyle Left” is but I am deeply imbued with the law, that is, we are nation of laws, not men. We must have had a reason to create a national Constitution, and generally have tried to follow it. I don’t see why we should make an exception, and suddenly redefine Equality because some people oppose marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. If someone has a good reason for why gay and lesbian couples should not be permitted to marry, I’m all ears!

Jennifer, in my opinion and to be honest, both your previous post and this new one have revealed you to be inconsequential and, yes, icky. “Our posts on the costs of divorce, the benefits of monogamy, the various nefarious acts by the IVF industry, the problems of population decline, and the Indian government’s sterilization of its citizens generated an average of zero comments.”
I say inconsequential because, based upon your statement above, what other reason could you possibly have had in stating, “In my opinion, anal sex is icky.” other than you were feeling neglected and…inconsequential. To be bold and brazen is not necessarily to be brave. Keep trying with your social issues and keep it clean.

If you don’t want people to think your opinion of anal sex has something to with the definition of marriage, perhaps you shouldn’t use the repeatedly use the phrase “definition of marriage” when introducing it.

And now, for a more elevated and very Catholic discussion that avoids the term “anal sex”..

Pope John Paul the 1st
may have been murdered
just 33 days into his papacy in 1978
in part because of his extremely liberal
views on homosexuality :
“We have made of sex the greatest of sins, whereas in itself it is nothing more than human nature and not a sin at all.” page 68
“The desire to parent children is a basic human need . . . Until we can guarantee basic human rights to the tiniest minority we cannot truthfully call ourselves a democracy.” page 56
“Never be afraid to stand up for what is right, whether your adversary be your parent, your peer, your teacher, your politician, your preacher, or even your God.” page 48
so spoke Albino Luciani (who was John XXIII first choice as a Bishop, then Paul VI’s first choice as a Cardinal, and the one whom this pope groomed to be his successor, Pope John Paul the First).
(The future Pope John Paul I) “did much to encourage single persons to adopt parentless children. It was his lobbying in the Italian Parliament that made it legal for single persons to adopt children in Italy.
When an opposition member of the assembly challenged his proposal: “But, that would make it legal for homosexuals to adopt children,” then Bishop Luciani responded, “The desire to parent children is a basic human need . . . Until the day comes that we can guarantee basic human rights and dignity to the tiniest minority, we cannot truthfully call ourselves a democracy.”
Yet, his adversary objected, `But homosexuals have a record of splitting up after the `honeymoon’ is over and this would cause children to lose either one or both parents.”
Luciani responded: “There are two major forces involved in making for long term loving relationships and regardless of what Rome might believe, sex is not one of them. As a matter-of- fact, sex is most often a declining force in many relationships. It often has very little to do with the long term survival of a union. The longevity of a relationship of two people who parent children that is so important to protecting the rights of children until they reach adulthood depends not on sex, but rather on the two major forces that create long term relationships, love and companionship. When one considers the latter, the homosexual has a great advantage. Two people of the same sex who fall in love with each other make much better companions of each other because they are more likely to share common interests. It is for this reason that children parented by homosexual couples are less likely to undergo the trauma of arguments in marriage and of divorce. ”
His opponent had still another objection: “Nevertheless, homosexuals are pedophiles. This will put children in great danger.”
“To begin with, ” Luciani responded, “homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia; one is sexual orientation and the other is sexual perversion. Yet, in that most cases of pedophilia involve incest, we must consider the question. If our objective is to prevent pedophilia in adoption then the only logical action is to permit only homosexuals to adopt children who are only of the opposite sex. This would reduce incest to zero. If we permit heterosexual couples to adopt children, then children would be at risk.”
Within a few years of the passage of that measure, more than a half-million children, who had previously been confined to the streets, were provided loving and economic support by single parents. Some of these were homosexual couples, in which case one of the parents had adopted the child, as it remained illegal for two people of the same sex to adopt the same child.
Very little is known of Luciani’s involvement with homosexual parents other than a few short notes written in connection with his orphanages, “We have found that homosexual
couples will take handicapped and less than healthy and attractive children. Most importantly, they will take bastards. Heterosexual couples, on the other hand, go for the cutest babies as if they were shopping for a puppy in a pet shop. ”
There is another note written in diary format, “Dear Mama,
“I have for many years counseled a young couple. They have great sexual attraction for each other, yet, beyond that they have nothing in common. I have yet to be in their presence when they have not been arguing between themselves or yelling at their children. In addition, they both suffer from a serious ongoing drug and alcohol addiction problem for which neither one has ever sought counsel. Both children, having been bombarded during their growing-up years by the incompatibility of their parents, are now confined to institutions. In that I sanctioned this marriage, I must live the rest of my days with this on my conscience.
`Last week, this same couple came to me on a matter of such great urgency that I had to cancel another appointment. They told me of a neighbor – one of the new single parents in Italy – who was a homosexual. As a matter-of-fact, another man has been living with him for many years.
“I have known of this queer relationship for sometime. Both men are contributing members of the community and spend much of their free time helping out in the parish orphanage. Their two beautiful children, a boy and a girl, are the envy of all who are privileged to experience them.
“One night as they were leaving, I noticed tears in their eyes. They told me, it grieves them that they cannot take all of the
children home with them.
“Mama, it is this experience, more that any other, that has caused me to understand the qualifications of a good parent. There is something terribly wrong with a society that thinks that one’s sex is what makes one a good parent. ”
Just three months before his death, Pope Paul VI permitted Cardinal Luciani to address the Vatican cardinals on the possibility that the Church might encourage homosexuals to enter into long term loving relationships as they represented the only population group that was large enough and willing to provide economic and emotional support to millions of children who otherwise would be aborted by women too young or too poor to support them. Luciani argued that the Church’s traditional position exiled homosexuals from society, forcing many of them into lives of loneliness and despair. He argued the Church’s position was one of prejudice, as medical science had proved that sexual orientation cannot be changed and the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual acts was scant compared to its vast condemnation of heterosexual acts.
At the conclusion of the session, Luciani had been unable to convince no more than a handful of his audience that the matter should even so much as be discussed. He thanked Paul for having given him the opportunity. He then turned to the Vatican cardinals and told them, “The day is not far off when we will have to answer to these people who through the years have been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose human dignity has been offended, their identity denied and their liberty oppressed. What is more, we will have to answer to the God who created them. ”
Forty years before the world’s psychiatric and medical communities came to the same conclusion, Luciani reasoned that sexual orientation could not be changed by therapy, that the ability to fall in love is a basic instinct.
Yet, as the psychiatric community tells us today, Luciani found that unlike sexual orientation, sexual behavior could be conditioned by therapy or other circumstances. He reasoned that there are two forces that drive a sexual act, love and lust. He knew when two people are in love, love tends to drive the sexual act and that when two people are not in love, lust tends to drive the act. He understood then what we are coming to know now; a homosexual male, for example, can be conditioned to have sex with a woman only by changing the motivating factor from one of love to one of lust. It is because he felt strongly that God’s children not be products of lust; he opposed this type of experimentation.
Luciani’s intermediate thesis “Strategy of a Strange War”, written when he was an advanced student in theology at the Gregorian University in Rome, was based on this subject. As a young seminarian in Belluno he had done much work in the local prison and had found that heterosexual men who were confined for long periods of time did engage in homosexual acts. But he also found “No matter how long the practice went on a heterosexual male could never fall in love with another male, that lust and not love was the driving force behind such behavior, that when a heterosexual male would have a long term intimate relationship with another male in prison he might grow to like him and even develop great affection for him, but he would never be able to fall in love with him. ” pp. 58-59

“(The future Pope John Paul I) “did much to encourage single persons to adopt parentless children. It was his lobbying in the Italian Parliament that made it legal for single persons to adopt children in Italy.”

Not sure where the author got his information, but Italy limits adoption to married couples.

@Rich
“And now, for a more elevated and very Catholic discussion that avoids the term “anal sex”..

Pope John Paul the 1st
may have been murdered
just 33 days into his papacy in 1978
in part because of his extremely liberal
views on homosexuality :”

So much for the warning in the title: “Don’t hurt yourself jumping to conclusions!”

Murdered? Rich, did your “open/educated” mind entertain the idea that perhaps the liberal Pope (if he was so) was working for a more conservative Boss and that maybe he just got fired?

“…when two people are in love, love tends to drive the sexual act and that when two people are not in love, lust tends to drive the act.”

Then I suppose all homosexuals fall in love before they identify their “sexual orientation”, because otherwise it would seem that lust drives the “act” of falling in love.

“….he might grow to like him and even develop great affection for him, but he would never be able to fall in love with him. ”

This is not remotely a “very Catholic” concept. Catholic love is not something people “fall into”. It is not based on fate or physical attraction. It is a selfless sacrificial act for the sake of the beloved. The reason a long term sexual relationship does not become true love is that is based in self indulgence. A need for personal satisfaction.

True love/the Catholic concept of love, is the ultimate gift of self. It is not based on what the lover receives, but what they give. And in true marriage, the lover gives themself. Freely. Not based on what they receive in return.

Before anyone hurts themselves jumping to conclusions, let me say that I am not suggesting that marriage should or may not have an element of physical attraction. But surely it is not the foundation nor ultimate necessity for love to exist.

I am also not suggesting that all Catholic marriages are behaved in as they should be. Nevertheless, the Church’s teaching and perspective on love is never based in self gratification.

I don’t know what your source was in quoting the Pope. But perhaps the limited circulation of the source you’re quoting is some indication of just how narrowly accepted it was by the Church.

It takes a certain maturity to accept others for who they are, even when they’re different. You can still have your standards, and apply them to yourself, with the understanding that others aren’t your subjects, or slaves, or victims. There’s something childish about needing to impose your standards on others, especially when they’re strangers.

While we need to acknowledge the inherent worth of each individual, there is no mandate to accept all behavior as equal, praiseworthy, or of good report. Not all behaviors are equal, and they certainly don’t produce equally desirable consequences. We do impose some standards of behavior on others. We do impose moral standards on others–hate crimes laws, laws against sexual behavior with a minor, etc.

“there is no mandate to accept all behavior as equal, praiseworthy, or of good report”

Fair enough but what principles serve to determine which behaviors are acceptable and which must be legally prohibited? What happens when principles collide with each other? Usually, we respect choices adults make about private matters: what to wear, when and with whom to have sex with (and, for the most part, what their sexual practices are), whom they associate with. We also have a strong legal mandate to treat all citizens equally. Yet many people want the government to enforce their personal disapproval of gay couples getting married.